Control

The leadership of a congregation, whether as a group or as an individual pastor, steers a narrow course between “too controlling” and “too loose.”

A congregation in which every activity and meeting must be personally cleared with the top leadership or with the pastor will soon encounter problems. First, the leadership will overwork itself, and will never be able to keep up with the task of reviewing everything; promising new ministries will not be able to launch. Secondly, new leadership will not be grown from within the ranks, because there are no opportunities; delegation is more than a labor-saving technique: it is the nursery for future leaders. Third, errors will necessarily result, because the leadership has placed itself, despite humble intentions, into a position of papal-like infallibility; if it demands final review on any new project, it is, de facto, the final word in judgment, and being merely human, will eventually err. Finally, an atmosphere of control, not “the freedom of the Gospel,” will prevail. The New Testament speaks warningly against those who seek to take away, even if unintentionally, the freedom which Jesus acquired for us.

At the other extreme, a congregation which exercises no “quality control” fails to use the written Word of God, and the rationality which God gives to humans, as measuring device to examine both new and on-going activities. In such a congregation, not only will heresies find fertile ground, but incompetent ministry leaders, and poorly designed ministries, will hurt (again unintentionally) people — the people who came to them for help.

How then to exercise “quality control” without becoming “controlling”? I don’t have all the answers to that question, but I have a few ideas. First, as in all matters, the written Word takes the lead. The congregation does not gather around its leaders, but it gathers around the Word of God: both the Living Word, Who is Jesus, Who is found to be physically and bodily present in the bread and wine, and Who places the Holy Spirit into us; and the Written Word, which speaks to us again and again, ever fresh. Second, we must avoid the extremes of top-down authoritarianism on the one hand, and bottom-up democratic congregationalism on the other hand. Leadership must be clear about its mission and purpose, and willing to delegate. Members must be willing to acknowledge the authority of various positions in the organizational chart.

Reconciliation is the Goal

Because conflict is a necessary ingredient in a healthy congregation, the goal in its process is not winning, but reconciliation. If you and I disagree, we want to work to find a manner of honest restoration of friendly relations between us.

We cannot simply pretend that the disagreement doesn’t exist; we can’t simply agree “not to mention it.” We must apologize to each other for times when we didn’t carry out our conflict in a loving manner; we must seek and offer forgiveness.

The goal, or the answer, is not for someone to simply go away. The best answer to a congregation’s problems is not for “that person to leave” or “those people to attend a different congregation.” The best answer is for all the members to stay and learn to face their conflicts directly. If I leave, or if you leave, we both will have lost an opportunity to grow in godly wisdom.

So if there are problems in a congregation, don’t leave, and don’t wish for anyone else to leave. Don’t act as if everything is fine, because it isn’t. Acknowledge the conflict, publicly and corporately. Talk lovingly with those who disagree with you; talk about the disagreement. If you are a leader, facilitate such discussions, and if anyone wants to leave the congregation, urge them to stay, even those, and especially those, with whom you personally disagree.

Reconciliation is better than breaking fellowship.

Free For Conflict, Not Free From Conflict

A Christian congregation is, among other things, a forum for discussion. This is not its primary purpose, but it is an essential activity. As a Christ-centered group, it must provide a “safe” atmosphere in which conflicting ideas to be expressed.

God desires that His people live in harmony (Ps. 133:1), yet He sees conflict, not as the opposite of harmony, but rather as the path to harmony (Prov. 27:17). Therefore, conflict is a necessary part of a Christian congregation.

When Christians engage in emotionally healthy and loving conflict, God is at work, maturing His people. When Christians engage in manipulative and shaming conflict, the devil is trying to weaken the Body of Christ.

The leadership of a congregation can facilitate civil engagement of conflicting ideas in discussion. This means that, at times, congregational leadership moves into a “facilitating” role. Wisdom and judgment are required to know when the leaders should be more facilitative, and when they should lead in a directional sense. In general, leaders should move out of the facilitative role when there is an issue of doctrinal truth, when a clearly unloving behavior harms individuals, or when their fiduciary duty toward God as caretakers of His people demands decisive action.

There should not be an effort to silence or suppress conflict, but rather there should be attempts to work conflict through to a resolution, and to reconciliation. Therefore, leaders should encourage all manner of discussion.

Secrets

A certain sign of problems in a church is the frequent use of confidentiality.

A congregation is not a secret society, and there is very rarely any reason for a meeting, discussion, or set of facts to be confidential. The only common valid reason for invoking privacy is a situation of personal pastoral counseling related to a sensitive issue; even in these situations, pastors will often advise the care receiver to disclose as much as possible to friends and family as part of the path back to peace of mind.

Meetings of various types (“elders” or “church council”) should be open; anyone can attend and listen, although not anyone can speak. Leaders will understand that this is a way to generate trust and goodwill. When leaders require that meetings be secret or confidential, this breeds mistrust.

Any correspondence - letters and emails - should be open and available to members. What could there possibly be to hide, if the leaders are giving a good-faith effort to operate in the best interests of their members?

The more openness, the better. Everything done in public. There is nothing to fear.

The Church for the Pastor, or the Pastor for the Church?

This should be obvious; yet, simply because it should be doesn’t mean that it is. The job of the members of a congregation is not to keep the pastor happy. The task of Christians in a particular fellowship is not to please their leaders.

In an ideal, or at least healthy, setting, the pastor and the members of a church seek the same thing: they are in harmony, as they both desire to serve the Lord, and they understand that task in the same, or at least similar ways. The leaders of a Christian fellowship, seeking the will of Jesus, will most often be in agreement with Christians who are part of that group, as they desire to serve Jesus also.

But in an unhealthy setting, the pastor can see his will as the direction for the congregation. The leaders don’t seek guidance; they become the guidance. In a sick group, the concern is to please the minister, not to please God. Or, at least, people “tread lightly” for fear of annoying the preacher - they are in fear of his anger, instead fearing God’s wrath.

When you hear a statement like, “I wouldn’t do that; the pastor might not like it!” you have entered a mentally unhealthy setting. If you hear, “those people will incur God’s wrath for the the way they’re ignoring the pastor’s advice!” then the true Gospel has gotten lost in an authoritarian system.

It’s a fine line between “ignoring God’s wisdom” and “ignoring the pastor’s advice.” Yes, they are often the same. But God will call each of us individually to account. We can’t hide behind the notion that we were following our pastor’s leadership. God will ask us if we followed His will, not the minister’s will.

Some people will incur God’s wrath for not rebuking and chastening their pastors.

The Pastor vs. “The Pastor”

Understanding and interacting with the office of the pastor is an important issue in the life of a congregation. Most congregations are centered, in the minds of the parishioners, even if not in the official theology of the denomination, around the pastor.

It is crucial to understand the distinction between “the office of the pastor” and “the person of the pastor” — the organizational role and the individual human who has been entrusted with that role.

We make a similar distinction in secular politics: It was not office of the President which committed an indiscretion when Bill Clinton engaged in an affair with Monica Lewinsky, or when Richard Nixon destroyed certain tape recordings, but rather it was the person who trespassed.

There is, then, a certain tension between the person of the pastor and the office of the pastor; in a normal case, this tension is slight, and does not greatly hinder the work of the congregation. In severe cases, however, it presents a great challenge to the congregation, as the people must carefully and repeatedly sort out the differences.

In individual decisions, it can come to this: that one must decide to side with the office of the pastor against the person of the pastor, if things have become so extreme that the two are in conflict. This requires some very careful thinking on the part of the congregation. In order to support, and show respect for, the office of the pastor, it may require that we oppose the person of the pastor.

How Should a Congregation be Governed?

The question of how a congregation should be governed — not ruled — is a complex and troublesome one. One commentator has noted that theological truth does not necessitate one particular form of governance, but rather that there is a certain freedom to choose different types of structures within the umbrella of truth. In any case, this is not an easy question to answer. It is perhaps easier to say how a congregation should not be governed:

A Christian congregation is not a democracy - although it uses the democratic method of voting and parliamentary procedures. It is not a democracy, because if it were, than the consent of 51% would justify anything. Instead, the text of the Scripture stands above any vote.

A Christian congregation is also not an authoritarian structure. It is not governed by a pyramid-shaped, top-down hierarchy. Instead, we embrace the “priesthood of all believers” (Exodus 19:6, I Peter 2:9, Matthew 20:25, Mark 10:42, Luke 22:25).

The following three concepts might be presented as foundational for any notion of how to govern a Christian congregation: truth, stewardship, and love.

Truth is a governing principle, inasmuch as the text of the Scripture, and those same truths as reflected in the confessional documents of the church, are constant, invariable, and non-negotiable. The congregation must begin with the understanding that it is gathered around Jesus as the Living Word, and the text of the Scripture as the Written Word, and thus the idea of doctrine is an organizational cornerstone.

Stewardship is a governing principle, inasmuch as the congregation possesses its fellowship, not as property, but as a loan from God, and will be responsible to Him for how that fellowship is maintained.

Finally, love is a governing principle, inasmuch as all that is done must be done with an eye toward the benefit of others, and not the benefit of self - whether that self be an individual or collective.

There is much left unanswered here, and I do not claim to know all that is proper to governing a congregation. But perhaps I have discovered at least a little here.